The current evaluation of Vud

arXiv: 1509.04743vl [nucl-ex] 15 Sep 2015

SNSN-323-63
September 17, 2015

The current evaluation of Kd

J.C. Hard\0and I.S. Towner^

Cyclotron Institute, Texas A&M University
College Station, TX, 77843-3366 U.S.A.

The Kid element of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix can be de¬
termined from several different experimental approaches: either 0^—
superallowed nuclear fl decays, neutron decay, nuclear mirror decays, or
pion /3 decay. Currently all give consistent results but, because the nu¬
clear superallowed value has an uncertainty at least a factor of seven less
than all other results, it dominates the result. A new survey of world
superallowed-decay data establishes the Tt values of 14 separate super-
allowed transitions to a precision of order 0.1% or better; and all 14 are
statistically consistent with one another. This very robust data set yields
the result Kid = 0.97417(21), the value we recommend.

PRESENTED AT

CIPANP2015

Twelfth Conference on the Intersections of Particle and

Nuclear Physics

Vail, CO, U.S.A., May 19-24, 2015

^This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science,
Office of Nuclear Physics, under Award Number DE-FG03-93ER40773, and by the Welch Foundation
under Grant No. A-1397.

1 Superallowed nuclear beta decay

Beta decay between nuclear analog states of spin-parity, = O’*", and isospin, T = 1,
has a unique simplicity: It is a pure vector transition and is nearly independent
of the nuclear structure of the parent and daughter states. Such transitions are
called “superallowed.” Their measured strength ~ expressed as an “/t value” - can
be related directly to the vector coupling constant for semi-leptonic decays, Gy; with
the intervention of only a few small (~1%) calculated terms to account for radiative
and nuclear-structure-dependent effects. Once Gy has been determined in this way,
it is only another short step to obtain a value for IGd, the up-down mixing element
of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix.

The ft value of any [3 transition is simply the product of the phase-space factor,
/, and the partial half-life of the transition, t. It depends on three measured quanti¬
ties: the total transition energy, Q^c, the half-life, ti/ 2 , of the parent state, and the
branching ratio, R, for the particular transition of interest. The Qbc value is required
to determine /, while the half-life and branching ratio combine to yield the partial
half-life.

In dealing with superallowed decays, it is convenient to combine some of the small
correction terms with the measured /t-value and dehne a corrected J^t-value. Thus,
we write pQ

Rt = ft{l + (5^)(1 (5ns - <^c) = 2(^2

where K = 8120.2776(9) x 10“^° GeV“^s, is the isospin-symmetry-breaking cor¬
rection and is the transition-independent part of the radiative correction. The
terms and ^ns constitute the transition-dependent part of the radiative correction,
the former being a function only of the electron’s energy and the Z of the daughter
nucleus, while the latter, like (5c, depends in its evaluation on nuclear structure. From
this equation, it can be seen that a measurement of any one superallowed transition
establishes a value for Gy. The measurement of several tests the Conserved Vector
Current (CVC) hypothesis that Gy is not renormalized in the nuclear medium. If
indeed Gy is constant - i.e. all the J^t-values are the same - then an average value
for Gy can be determined and lAd obtained from the relation I4d = Gy/Gp, where
Gp is the well known EE] weak-interaction constant for purely leptonic muon decay.

It is important to note that if, instead, the Rt values show a signihcantly non-
statistical inconsistency, one to the other, then the remaining steps cannot be taken
since inconsistency would demonstrate that the correction terms were not correct or,
less likely, that CVC had been violated. Without consistency, there is no coupling
“constant” and there can be no justihcation for extracting a value for Wd.

Early in 2015, we published |T] a new critical survey of all half-life, decay-energy
and branching-ratio measurements related to 20 superallowed 0^—)■ O’*" /3 decays.
Included were 222 individual measurements of comparable precision obtained from

1

Z of daughter Z of daughter

Figure 1: Results from the 2015 survey [T]: uncorrected ft values for the 14 best
known superallowed decays on the left; the same results but incorporating the 6c
and ^Ns correction terms on the right. The grey band in the right panel is the average
6Ft value and its uncertainty.

177 published references. We obtained world-average ft values for each of the 18
transitions that had a complete set of data, and then applied radiative and isospin-
symmetry-breaking corrections to extract corrected 6Ft values. A total of 14 of these
6Ft values have a precision of order 0.1% or better; their uncorrected ft values and
corrected 6Ft values are shown in Fig. [H

It is immediately evident from the hgure that the 6Ft values are all consistent with
one another from A=10 to A=74. This simultaneously conhrms the CVC expectation
of a constant value for and demonstrates the absence of any signihcant scalar
current, which would introduce an upward or downward curve into the value locus
at low Z pp. It also goes a long way towards validating the particular set of calculated
transition-dependent corrections that were used in the analysis. These calculations
of 6c and (5 ns were an updated version of those presented in Ref. |1] and employed
the best available shell-model wave functions, which in each case had been based on
a wide range of spectroscopic data for nuclei in the same mass region. They were
further tuned to agree with measured binding energies, charge radii and coefficients of
the isobaric multiplet mass equation for the specihc states involved. This means that
the origins of these correction terms are completely independent of the superallowed
decay data, so consistency in the corrected Tt values gives powerful support to the
calculated corrections used in the derivation of those 6Ft values. We will return later
to the question of alternative calculations for these correction terms.

With a mutually consistent set of 6Ft values, one is then justihed in proceeding to
determine the value of Gv and, from it. Kid- The result we obtained from the new
survey is

iRidl = 0.97417(21) [nuclear superallowed].

2

2 Other methods for determining Kd

Neutron (3 decay is the simplest (3 decay to involve both the vector and axial-vector
weak interactions. It is an attractive option for determining V^d since its analysis
does not require the application of corrections for isospin-symmetry-breaking, 5c, or
for nuclear-structure-dependent radiative effects, (5 ns- However, it has the distinct
disadvantage that it requires a difficult correlation measurement in order to separate
the vector-current contribution to its decay from the axial-vector one. Not only that,
but neutrons are inherently more difficult to handle and contain than nuclei.

Since the Q^c value and the branching ratio for neutron (3 decay are very well
known, the crucial measurements required to determine Kid are its mean-life and a
decay correlation - usually selected to be the (3 asymmetry from the decay of polarized
neutrons. World data for both these quantities are not statistically consistent among
themselves, the normalized chi-squared {x^/N) for the mean-life average being 3.4 and
that for the (3 assymmetry being 3.8. More alarming still is the fact that the mean-
life results from two different measurement techniques appear to be systematically
different from one another. The average mean-life obtained when the decay products
are recorded from a beam of neutrons is 888.1(20)s; while it is 879.5(7)s when neutrons
are conhned in a “bottle” and the survivors are counted a known time later. It is
difficult to know how to deal with such conflicts so we employ two different methods.
With the hrst, we follow exactly the same procedures as we do for the superallowed
decays, averaging all world data for each parameter and increasing its uncertainty
by the square root of the normalized chi-squared. For the second we simply assign a
range to the mean-life, which encompasses both the conflicting sets of results. The
results for Kid are

[neutron average],
[neutron range].

iKdl = 0.9754(14)
0.9707 < Wd < 0.9761

Neutron (3 decay is just a special case of decay between T = 1/2 mirror nuclei. Like
neutron decay, these nuclear mirror decays are mixed vector and axial-vector decays;
so, in addition to Qbc values, half-lives and branching ratios, they also require a (3-
asymmetry measurement. Of course, unlike the neutron, these decays as well require
the corrections 5c and (5 ns for small nuclear-structure-dependent effects. There are
hve mirror decays, ^®Ne, ^^Na, ^^Ar and for which sufficient data are known.
The relevant world data were hrst surveyed in 2008 [5], from which a value of |Kid|
was obtained [6]. More data have appeared since and been incorporated [7] although
there has been very little change in the |Kid| value obtained. The current result is

[mirror nuclei].

iKdl = 0.9718(17)

Finally, the rare pion beta decay, tt’*' which has a branching ratio of

~10“®, is one of the most basic semi-leptonic electroweak processes. It is a pure

3

.9800

|Vud|

.9750

.9700 L_I_I__I_

nuclear neutron nuclear pion

mirrors

■003 F -^ F ^ F ^ F

Figure 2: The five values of |Fud| given in the text are shown in the top panel, the
grey band being the average value. The four panels at the bottom show the error
budgets for the corresponding results with points and error bars at the top.

vector transition between two spin-zero members of an isospin triplet and is therefore
analogous to the superallowed O’*"—J-O"'' decays. In principle, it can yield a value of 14d
unaffected by nuclear-structure uncertainties. In practice, the branching ratio is very
small and has proved difficult to measure with sufficient precision. The most recent,
and by far the most precise, measurement of the branching ratio is by the PIBETA
group |8]. This leads to the result |9]

iKdl = 0.9749(26) [pion].

3 Recommended value for Kd

The five results we have quoted for |14d| are plotted in Fig. |2l Obviously they are
consistent with one another but, because the nuclear superallowed value has an un¬
certainty a factor of 7 to 13 smaller than the other results, it dominates the average.
Furthermore, the more precise of the two neutron results can hardly be considered
definitive since it ignores a serious systematic uncertainty in the data. Consequently
we recommend using the nuclear superallowed result as the best value for |14id|: i-e.

iKdl = 0.97417(21). (2)

4

4 Potential for improvement

The uncertainty budgets plotted in the bottom panels of Fig.[2]reveal three important
facts. First, experimental uncertainties dominate in the cases of the less-precisely
known neutron, nuclear-mirror and pion /^-decays; while theory makes the largest
contribution to the overall uncertainty for the key 0^ decays. Second, by far the
most important theoretical contribution to the latter is from the radiative correction,
principally it turns out [1] from A^, the transition-independent part of the radiative
correction. Finally, the size of the contribution is the same for all measurement
methods; thus we can conclude that no major improvement in the value of |Fud| can
be achieved in future without improved calculations of A^.

Unfortunately, experiment can play no role in reducing the Aj^ uncertainty. That
must remain a purely theoretical challenge. The impact of any improvement would be
immediate though; If the A^ uncertainty were to be cut in half, the lUidl uncertainty
would be reduced by 30%.

In the meantime, some small improvement in the |Vud| uncertainty can still be
made with the help of nuclear experiments. These experiments can contribute to
improving the nuclear-structure-dependent corrections (6c - ^ns); which produce the
second largest component of the |Uud| uncertainty budget for the 0+—?■ O’*" decays (see
Fig. H]). In the past few years, a number of different groups have published 6c values
from calculations based upon a variety of different model approaches. Typically each
calculation covers only a subset of the measured transitions but the subsets are not
the same from calculation to calculation and, where overlap does exist, the results
are not notably consistent with one another. This diversity of results has prompted
us to develop a test HD] to assess the quality of each calculated set of corrections
and determine its relative merit. The test is based on the premise that the CVC
hypothesis is valid and thus the corrected 6Ft values for all measured transitions
should be statistically consistent with one another (i.e. with x^/A~l).

This test has already contributed to reducing the uncertainty in 5^. As part of our
recent survey [T], we applied the test to all sets of calculations that cover at least half
the number of well-measured superallowed transitions. The resultant 'x^/N values for
the various calculations spanned a wide range, with only a single set |1] yielding a
value near one. In this way, we identihed that set as the one to use in our ultimate
analysis of the experimental data (see Fig.[T]). No allowance for systematic differences
between otherwise acceptable calculations was required since no other set passed the
acceptability test.

There is a second test that can be expected to refine the selection process for 6c
calculations even further. It involves the measurement of mirror pairs of superallowed
transitions, which has only just become possible, with the first case — ^®Ca —>■
and —)• Ar — having appeared very recently [TTl |T2] . This test also depends

on the expected constancy of Tt values, but in this instance it applies to the two

5

members of a mirror pair of O’*"—)■ O’*" transitions. Considering current capabilities for
producing superallowed Tz = -1 parent nuclei in sufficient quantity for a high-statistics
measurement, we conclude that there are three mirror pairs in addition to the one
at ^4=38 that can be completed in the immediate future. These are ^®Si —)-^®™'Al and

26mA1^26Mg; 34Ar^34Ql 34 qi ^34g. 42rjj^42g^ 42g^^42Qj^_

These tests have already played a role in reducing the |14d| uncertainty. With
improved measurement precision on the already known ft values, together with the
addition of new mirror pairs of transitions, some modest further improvement can be
expected. However, ultimately these will only have a significant impact on the |Vud|
result after meaningful improvements have been made in the calculation of A^.

5 Note on |Ks| and the CKM unitarity test

The standard model does not prescribe the individual elements of the CKM matrix
- they must be determined experimently - but absolutely fundamental to the model
is the requirement that the matrix be unitary. To date, the most demanding test
of CKM unitarity comes from the sum of squares of the top-row elements, iWdP +
|fusp + iKibP, which should equal exactly one. Combining our value for |14d| in
Eq. (|2]) with the values of |Kis| and |Kib| recommended by the Particle Data Group
(PDG) Bl, the top-row sum yields the result 0.99978(55), in excellent agreement with
unitarity.

Unfortunately this cannot be the last word since the PDG evaluation does not
include recent results from the most recent lattice calculations, which are used to
extract |Uus| from semileptonic kaon decays {K —)■ Tiiui), and iKisl/lKidl from the
ratio of the pure leptonic decay of the kaon —)■ to to that of the pion

(tt^ In the past, the results for lUisI and iWsl/lKidl have formed a consistent

set with the result for |Uud|. As the quoted uncertainties on the lattice calculations
have been reduced, however, some tension has appeared, with the combination of
results for |Uud| and |Vus|/|I4d| continuing to yield excellent agreement with unitarity
but the combination of |I4id| and |I4is| being low by two standard deviations. This
is not a cause for serious concern, but the inconsistency between the two kaon-decay
approaches will need to be resolved in future.

This subject is discussed in more detail in section VB of Ref. [1].

References

[1] J.C. Hardy and I.S. Towner, Phys. Rev. C 91, 025501 (2015).

[2] K.A. Olive et al, Chin. Phys. C 38, 090001 (2014).

[3] V. Tishchenko V et al. (MuLan Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D, 87, 052003 (2013).

6

[4] I.S. Towner and J.C. Hardy, Phys. Rev. C 77, 025501 (2008).

[5] N. Severijns, M. Tandecki, T. Phulet and I.S. Towner Phys. Rev. C 78, 055501
(2008).

[6] O. Naviliat-Cnncic and N. Severijns, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 142302 (2009).

[7] P.D. Shidling et al, Phys. Rev. C 90, 032501(R) (2014).

[8] D. Pocanic et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 181803 (2004).

[9] E. Blucher andW.J. Marciano, “Vud, Vus, the Cabibbo angle and CKM unitarity”,
article in Ref. [2].

[10] I.S. Towner and J.C. Hardy, Phys. Rev. C, 82, 065501 (2010).

[11] H.I. Park et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 102502 (2014).

[12] H.I. Park et al, Phys. Rev. C. 92, 015502 (2015).

7